Back when we had 13 channels, Mom used to say: "Don't sit so close,you'll ruin your eyes." I wonder what she'd say about the Internet...

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

WaPo to Women Bloggers--It's Not What You Know...

Update: It's now June, and I've learned alot on the last six months, mostly by getting into some rather important and interesting dialogues with bloggers and journalists...since my vocabulary has evolved, and in looking back at this post, I realize that what I was looking for from Hamsher was transparency. I wanted to know more about her background--specifically what she'd done before blogging for Huffington Post. I did extensive google and yahoo searches on the day of this post, and found realitively little information about her. That was troubling to me because I knew a great deal about the others on the panel. My feelings were, and still are, that if someone is to be on a panel, I want to know everything about who he/she is.I expect the person to be transparent. Transparency earns trust. If the person isn't willing to tell me outright, and the event he/she is participating in is only giving me a soundbyte, I should be able to use whatever search engines I have at hand to find all the information necessary to know about this person. The person should have a bio that tells me who he/she is, her experience both past and present.

I have been on panels. I know people check backgrounds--as soon as my profile's up, I get googled and people find their way back to my blogs. At the time of this post, I did what I could to verify Hamsher's background and came up with nothing other than the official Huffington Post soundbyte. I came up with less information than someone could have found out about me, or any other of a number of bloggers I know, at that time. Something was just not right.

In effect, I expected transparency. When there is transparency, I can respect that person--even if he/she doesn't have an illustrious background--more than I can respsect someone who says he/she is a "blogger" and leaves it at that. Why? Because, quite frankly, the term "blogger" is, right now, subjective. It can mean someone who uses a particular tool (a blog) to communicate. It can be someone who's mastered a communication form. It can be related to a businessperson, am activist, a former reporter, a thinker or just an average schmoe looking for a voice in the media malestrom.

I do not believe that we should hide behind the subjective label of "blogger" in order to get some sort of cred with the common man--or common woman. I don't think anyone should try to be a blogger just because it's All The Rage and The Cool Thing To Be.

All bloggers may be created equal--we use the same tool. But some bloggers--by their backgrounds and the editorial process behind them--are, in the eyes of many, more equal than others.

The other term I've become very familiar with is astroturfing. The term is usually associated with political orgs that pay or otherwise support individuals in commenting, emailing, or snailmailing efforts that simulate a grassroots opinion campaign. The main hallmarks of blog comment astroturf are a series of sentiments with similar syntax left by sources that cannot be verified, or are anonymous/pseudonymous. There are many ways to say "you suck," but if a number of comments appear saying "you suck," and in a very similar manner, or are all anonymous/pseudonymous and/or unverifiable, you can bet the comments are astroturfing efforts of an org to get someone to never blog again.

In Blogger, there are ways for 'turfers to give the semblance of being legit--set up a false profile, with no trackable information, and no blog, just to comment.

One way to root out 'turfers, other than noticing their shoddy syntax and lack of identity, is to track the comments back thru a blog's stats (if you have the stats package to do that) If a series of comments are generated from the same ISP, or from the same geographic area in a short period of time, it's probably 'turf.

'Turfers are bullies, and many think they are justified in their actions because their cause is righteous. Yeah, and terrorists often feel the same way.

When I looked back at the number of negative comments, not just noting how many were anonymous, I also noticed how so many said the same thing. I wasn't able to verify if they were all from the same ISP (I have the freebie Sitemeter, so no perks), but I've got an inkling that a number of them were Astroturf.

Transparency remains one of my big concerns (right now, a bit more that astroturfing). Some members of the MSM would like journalists to reveal personal info about themselves in efforts to avoid conflicts of interest. Some newsrooms are putting out good efforts to be transparent by opening up about their editorial processes. Bloggers are fighting MSM over transparency--and I think each and every one who engages the debate has his/her own reason for not being transparent. But if a blogger is already revealing a likeness and a name, why hide in an effort to be "just a blogger"?

What then is "just a blogger"? Sometimes "just a blogger" isn't quite a blogger like another unknown blogger. Sometimes "just a blogger" should be more transaprent than even the high profile folks of MSM. Otherwise, he/she is in the same opaque-bottomed boat as MSM, and, perhaps, just as deceptive. end

Today, the Washington Post will demonstrate to bloggers all over the U.S. that women bloggers don't need much in the way of credentials to be part of a serious discussion on ethics when it host a panel on Ethics and Interactivity with Jane Hamsher sitting alongside Jay Rosen (who is probably the most qualified),Jeff Jarvis (who's being quiet on this one), and Glenn Reynolds (who truly puts the PUNDIT in Instapundit).

And, on behalf of my corner of the blogosphere, I'll say it loud: Jane Hamsher?

The Post and Jay Rosen prominently list her as blogging at firedoglake...but only the Post lists her as blogging at Huffington Post

Hmmm...why doesn't Jay list her as blogging for HP? Is it some sort of veiled attempt to make a Hollywood top-down communicator look like your Average Jane blogger?

What is even further insulting to all bloggers--and women bloggers especially--is that Hamsher has no background in journalism, nor ethics, nor handling comments. Hamsher says, though, in one post: "I can only speak about my own experience, as a blogger who regularly converses with numerous main stream media journalists." (BTW, I do this, too...)*Note: I followed the same soundbyte trail to find out about Jane as I did awhile ago to find out about Jeff, Jay and Glenn--from a link from another blog, to their blog, to their bio. Also, note that on the WaPo site, they tell us a great deal about J, J, & R, but not a lot about Jane, the only one of the group who was not one of the Usual Suspects. Why did the Post fail me, a soundbyte consumer, and tell me virtually nothing about the one woman on the panel and, once again, recite the pedigrees of the men? Do I really need the credentials of the Usual Suspects? Kinda odd to keep mum about the newbie, don't you think?

I love the way she so modestly calls herself a blogger when, in fact, that's hardly the case. According to her bio, she is a Hollywood Personage--a producer above anything else. She has blogged for her friend Arianna since September, '05 She co-blogs at firedoglake (yes, not even her own blog), and has only recently begun receiving comments--and I'm not even sure if she responds to them or just lets them accumulate.

The Post is merely proving to all of us out here in the blogosphere that celebrity more than anything bestows credibility. Jane Hamsher, blogging only since September, now, all of a sudden, knows so much more than so many of us about ethics, blogging, and journalism, that she is qualified to be on a Washington Post panel.

Frankly, if I were Jay, Jeff, and Glenn, I'd be seriously questioning the Post's decision to include Hamsher on the panel. Why couldn't the Post find y'all a peer? Someone with the credentials and the smarts to be on this panel?

Jane Hamsher manages one of the Bloggie's 5 nominees for best political blog. Traffic there gets hundreds of comments an hour. If you read her blog you'd know she deliberately underplayed her bio because she wasn't trying to be pretentious.

Firedoglake is the one of the best blogs out there. Jane Hamsher deserves to be participating in this discussion because she has, in a relatively short period of time, helped to create one of the preeminent left-leaning blogs on the Web.

Whether you're right or left, you have to appreciate the fact that Firedoglake is one of the most thoughtful and well researched blogs out there -- unlike so many opinion-blurting sites that only express the rage of the tiny, envious souls who can't understand why the world won't validate them...

If the interactive WAPO was moderated as they said it was, then I think the WAPO has created another Howell moment. I know there were many posts that asked important questions and presented valuable points of view. Why was this person's happy .... included? Jim Brady wasted his time mumbling about civility. There was no civility in the post from snarkaholic.

Any idea how much traffic Jane's blog generated toward the Washington Post?

Any idea how much traffic your blog generates toward any outside source?

Ahh, Smith. Trish from Smith. It figures.

Any idea of your ranking on a list of women bloggers by web traffic, or by advertising revenue, or by post-count per day? (Today's going to be a nice day for you, but it's unlikely to launch you into the professional realm.)

If you don't know who Jane Hamsher is, that says far more about you than it does about her. Firedoglake has achieved its rapid ascendancy in the blogosphere by its quality, not by virtue of whom Jane might know. (Obviously.)

I don't know you or your blog, but you come off here as being jealous and egotistical.

As other commenters have noted, FireDogLake has recently exploded as one of the most important political blogs, hence her credential. On a different note, I had assumed that your complaint stemmed from your being a RedState/Conservative... and glanced through your site for confirmation. I'm impressed that your Red/Blueness is not immediately obvious (to me at least).

Oh come on people, this is much too harsh. This is nothing more than a east coast elitist who is pissed off because the WAPO had the audacity to include some one from the WEST COAST. My God, can you imagine the chaos if this blogging thing leads to the elite east coast schools losing their strangle hold on the MSM? Next thing you know, people may not regard them as, well elite. How in the world will these poor people pay off their student loans if they have to compete in an open market?

Firedoglake is a site with a great deal of traffic, and since Jane has been one of the most outspoken, prominent critics of the Howell incident and Brady's removal of the comments, it was frankly both a good and gutsy move that she was picked. Firedoglake sometimes features strong opinions, but they are typically well-supported arguments and the reader comments tend to be thoughtful as well. In the blogosphere, the merit of one's argument often matters more than external "credentials."

By the way, as with Howell, I don't support any of the personal attacks on you in the comments here. However, since firedoglake is constantly linked by major sites, and the site is one of five contenders for a political blog award, the fact that you haven't heard of her says much more about you than her.

Best of luck with your blog, in all sincerity; this has certainly given you some traffic!

You can only dream of being as relevant and as eloquent as Jane Hamsher. She always has an intelligent and interesting take on the news, and a sense of humour.Someone hasnt been doing her research. Good to see that you exposed your lack of knowledge on a national blog chat. Good One!

Jane Hamsher is good at vitriol, swearing and generally acting like a jerk. It's hilarious to read these folks talking about what substance her blog has, because it has none, unless you're looking for some new swear words.

I've never been impressed enough by Hamsher's opinions to check out her blog, but I knew it was out there from frequent quotes in, for instance, Kausfiles. She's hardly an unknown. (Never, ever, do the "I know what you're asking, 'Who?'" bit. Like the "I know, I had to look that word up too" bit, it usually backfires in a pretty humiliating way.)

Well now. As you can see, there are a few folks who don't agree with what you've said. What will you do in response? Obviously those comments that simply unload on you won't do you any good but that's not all that's here is it? Have you detected an underlying theme in the other critical comments? I'll give you a clue, it has to do with knowing what you're talking about. You see, well done snark has to have a clue about its target, it isn't just saying nasty things. You may find it instructive to learn why lefties are amused at the "vapors" claims of some of those involved, particularly at the WaPo. Do you know that we have transcripts of Ms. Howell with a bit of a sailor's mouth of her own? Do you plan on learning from this or just following suit and running away?

Actually, I wasn't thinking of myself as being on the panel...I should have made that clear in the post.

I was thinking of women I know who are far more influential in both blogging and journalism than I am.

I figured since I'm so low on the totem pole that Glenn Reynolds would have just left me alone. That seems pretty much what happens out here. Lots of unknown bloggers can shoot their mouths of in worse ways than myself, and just get passed by.

Hmmm...still kinda wonder what Glenn was thinking when he linked to my paltry opnion.

Gee, Tish. I'm not a journalist either and I sure don't have anything to do with Hollywood, but Jane Hamsher is one of the most intelligent bloggers out there, along with her cohort Redhead. Their discourse is well-written, well researched and well-sourced and I find it to be a must-read every day as do many others. Blogs such as Digby, Atrios and Daily Kos link to her almost daily. There must be a reason for that, eh? How many, er, link to you? None that I've heard of. Sounds like a little professional jealousy to me.

Well, the one thing I might get from this is that I now have to post far differently than I have in the past...

As I said, I've been so low on the totem pole out here that I figured that Glenn Reynolds would do his Technorati vanity search, find me, and have a chuckle...not necessarily link to me.

There are, I'm sure, people who link to, and post negatively, about Glenn and others every day. I'm not the only one. Why he chose to single me out is, well...seriously, who can intuit the mind of a pundit?

Reading the above praise for Hamsher is a little surreal. Dexter Westbrook (above) has it right. In two minutes I could pull from her blog two dozen deranged, ad hominem and vituperative posts. You want "thoughtful," see Norm Geras or the Volokh Conspiracy. "Thoughtful" and "important" sites don't think invective is an effective way to persuade.

Here's a question. Hamsher is the only person who has ever banned me from a comments section (for a comment that was about as abusive as this one is). I went on to her site to find my comment and link to it. I found her post (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_firedoglake_archive.html#113512844891696501) but none of the posts from that archive have any comments with them. Is there a reason for that?

Jealous much? A rare chance for a liberal blogger to participate in a traditional media discussion, and you don't think Jane deserved to be there? She was a key driver in raising the issue being discussed.

While I'm very sorry Mr. Brady didn't know about you and your blog prior to the panel at the Washington Post today, and can see how disappointed you are,I find it interesting that you claim to have a background in ethics yet you seem to feel fine about slamming another woman's reputation and blogwhoring so obviously.

TishIsn't it funny that Jane's defenders are inadvertently making the Post's point?

If you take a look at the "chat" transcript is consists of whine after whine about comment hosting, yet Jane brags about deleting comments on her site that don't meet a certain cheerleading quality regardless of bad language, threats and nonsense (as in --do not espouse her view)

So really, take solace in this. Your not only doing the Post a favor, your demonstrating you are far more brave than she

Yeah, after that I wanted to login to Hamsher's site from another account, copy my earlier post, repost it in another thread, and ask her fans: "Do you realize that Hamsher is banning posters simply because they point out logical flaws in her arguments? In other words, do you support purely content-based censorship? Because that is what your liberal hero here is doing."

But I didn't. I've got better things to do. It's too bad, though, that many of her fans don't realize that they're posting in a deliberately constructed echo chamber.

ted I mentioned the ethics credentials because a lot of people are afraid to say they have studied ethics or religion. I'm really not afraid to say I've studied both--and I've taken alot of shit for that too...been called a "holy roller" and a "fundie" without anyone knowing my religios affiliation....

Look down the list of women who attended BlogHer back in July. There's a blogroll of women at www.blogher.org Lots of women on that list would have been great choices for the panel. I don't necessarily want to name them because I'm not too sure that they'd want a link today from this blog :-)

If your post accomplished anything, at least it brought out the whining, whimpering leftist moonbats in full regalia. What a disgusting mass of ignorant lumpen! My suggestion is that they all eat shit and die (if there's enough of Moore, Sheehan, Franken, etc. to go around) and remember that no one gives a rat's ass what they think about anything.

As for Mr. Bighshot Pundit linking to you, he wasn't taking you into his exclusive good ol' boys (and a few girls) fold, he was merely trying to foment some distemper on the range (perhaps much of it from the 'Brokeback' crew as evidenced here. Most of the fellows commenting here should be chewing pud in some Greyhound bus station washroom and drop the pretenses.

tish, you embarrassed yourself but suggesting that Jane should not have been invited to the discussion. she gets a lot of traffic at her site, she takes comments, her posts are well written and researched, not to mention topical, and she is linked to and discussed frequently. did you truly not know any of that?

and, as others mentioned, she was out in front on the issue of the WaPo's ombudsman. so where's the problem for you? you simply don't like her politics, is that it? in which case, my comment to you is that it is un-American to try to stifle someone from public discourse.

last point: in her recent post, Jane made the point that there were many comments in the hopper during the discussion and that it only took one reply by one of the participants to retrieve one. that explains why your comment made it onto the chat: the instahack pulled it out in order to embarrass Jane.

I am amazed that your commentors are so hateful! I came over from Instapundit to see what was happened and found a bunch of nasty, mean comments directed towards you. I have no idea why they were so upset with you, and I found no reason to think you believe you should have been included in the discussion. Maybe they need to take an aspirin and call it a day.

"Jane made the point that there were many comments in the hopper during the discussion and that it only took one reply by one of the participants to retrieve one. that explains why your comment made it onto the chat: the instahack pulled it out in order to embarrass Jane."

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I visted her site to see what all the fuss was about - all I found was vitrol re WaPo. Bunch of children patting her on the back, reassuring her she would have "won" [wtf?] if the evil rotten conservatives hadn't cheated again [sounds like 2000 PEST].

firedoglake is NOT important. SELF-important, yes, but Jane is really a nobody from nowhere, playing to the mirror. Truly an intellect-free zone with all the ichor you can swallow for a low, low, price.

Does Jane Hamsher respond to comments? Yes, in the most unethical and underhanded way I have ever seen on a blog. She edits them to add lines like "Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to banging my sister in the trailer." with absolutely no indication that the comments have been edited. Check here for the details:http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/12/rattling_the_ha.html

Hamsher is a world class hypocrite. She WILL not allow ANY adverse comments on her blog...she delights in deleting anything but "your hot Jane".

In the transcript it was apparen one participant whose goal was to channel Kos rather than get down to biz. It’s a problem. Once you start to radicalize it’s hard to take a step back. (does too stressed to think of smoking cessation Sean have her ear too? It is a wonder)

But hey that’s cool, it was fun. Jane has, in like a week, made herself radioactive.

By the way, when will ReddHead tire of putting like 4 hours a day on meaningful post, only to have reasoned post hog Hamsher rail road all over the hard work. That day is coming.

Hmmm....I'm toying with the idea of comment moderation here...as I truly prefer to receive comments from other bloggers. Coversation, which is important to me, and I believe key to the blogosphere, can only be had with others who use the medium, have their own soapboxes, and (more often than not) don't mind being being non-anonymous.

You're right, sadly. Lots of vitriol from the commenters, little real conversation. That's too bad. This could have been an interesting and rousing discussion of women bloggers we'd like to see on the panel, and why.

Mac That's the point I was trying to raise with this blog post! We should be talking more about who the women are who are included in conversations like this--not just sitting back and accepting who the Powers That Be have decreed is the right woman for the panel. But, sadly, the people who are most concerned about women on blogging panels decided to not get involved in this particular debate.

I think it was the fact that it was me who raised the point, that I'm not generally perceived as being all that "left wing" because I've talked about religon, and that I didn't unilaterally accept the groupthink.

Left or right, I don't accept groupthink.

Yet ot also makes me think that there isn't much room for debate on the left any more--that if we disagree with who is annointed, we have to suck it up and go with the Politically Correct decision.

I can't do that. And if the left is going to bully me, then, well, maybe there's not all that much room for someone like me on that side of the fence any more. Perhaps the National Journal is right after all.

One final note on this whole thing: this is my blog--like so many other blogs out there. And I am entitled to my opinion. Had Glenn Reynolds not picked up on it and shared it with everyone, I'd still be out here like a weaver creating homespun--like so many other bloggers. The simple fact that Reynolds chose to pick up on this post (and Jay Rosen on subsequent posts and Jeff Jarvis in the past) gives me pause to think that something's here in my writing--not necessarily only in the blogging--that is worth something.

Go ahead. Call me arrogant. Call me a bitch. Call me a lousy writer and crappy blogger and damn me to an eternity of obscurity. Heck, you can even call me Jeff Gannon in drag. but, hey, when guys like these link to something one said, (and peers are there to support and care), it ain't because they're trying to make an example--it's because they want to see what's going to happen next.